REPORT ON THE CEPHALOPODA. 45 



Taonius, Steenstrup, 1861. 



Loligopsis, d'Orbigny, Tryon, de EochelDiuiie, &c. 

 Desmoteuthis, Verrill 

 Procalistes, Lankestei', 

 Phasmatopsis, de Eoclieliruiie. 

 MegalocrancMa {?), Pfeffer. 



1. Taonius pavo (Lesueur), Steenstrup. 



1821. Loligo pavo, Lesueur, Journ. Acad. K"at. Sci. Philad., vol ii. p. 96, pi 



1839. Loligopsis pavo, d'Orb., Ceph. ac^t., p. 321 ; Calmars, pi vi. {excl. fig. 4) ; Loligopsis, 



pL iv. figs. 1-8 (pars). 

 1861. Taonius pavo, Stp., Overblik, pp. 70, 84. 

 1882. Desmoteuthis Mjim-horea (.?), Vll, Ceph. N. E. Amer., p. 302, pi xxvii. figs. 1, 2 ; 



pi xxxix. fig. 1 {excl. syn.). 

 1885. Taonius pavo, Hoyle, Loligopsis, p. 318. 



2. Taonius hyperboreus, Steenstrup (PI. XXXII. fig. 12; PI. XXXIII. figs. 1-11; 



p. 191). 

 1861. Taonius hyperboreus, Stp., Overblik., p. 83. 



1882. Desmoteuthis tenera {?), Vll., Ceph. K E. Amer., p. 412, pi Iv. fig. 2; pi Ivi. fig. 3. 

 1885. Taonius hyperioreus, Hoyle, Loligopsis, p. 321. 



3. Taonius cymoctypus (de Eocliebrune), Hoyle. 



1839. Loligopsis pavo, d'Orb., Ceph. acefc., p. 321; Calmars, pi. vi. fig. 4 (?); pi. xxiii, figs. 10, 11. 

 {2Mrs). 



1884. Phasmatopsis cymoctypus, Eochehr., Monogr. Loligopsidas, p. 17, pi. i. 



1885. Taonius cymoctypus, Hoyle, Loligoj)sis, p. 323. 



4. Taonius suhmi (Lankester), (PL XXXII. figs. 5-11 ; p. 192). 



1884. Procalistes Suhmii, Lankester, Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., vol. xxiv. p. 311. 



5. Taonius elongatus, Steenstrup, MS. (PL XXVIII. fig. 13 ; p. 189). 



6. Taonius schneehageni (Pfeffer).^ 



1884. Loligopsis Schneehagenii, Pfir., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 23, fig. 31. 



7. Taonius {?) maximus (Pfefi"er).^ 



1884. MegalocrancMa maxima, Pffr., Ceph. Hamb. Mus., p. 24, fig. 32. 



Pyrgopsis, de Eocliebrune, 1884. 



1. Pyrgopsis rhynchophorus, de Eochebrune. 



1884. Py7-gopsis rynchophoriis, Eochebr., Monogr. Loligopsidse, p. 23, pi ii. figs. 1-6. 



^ Dr. Pfeflfer has been good enough to furnish me with a number of additional particulars regarding this form, 

 which leave no doubt that it should be referred to the genirs Taonius. 



" If I am correct in referring this form to the genus Taonius, the specific designation is singularly unfortunate; 

 minimus would have been more appropriate ; but in the present state of our knowledge it is not worth while to burden 

 the animal with another name. 



